21st Century Classical Greek -- conditional 8

I have this as conditional 9 in my file but it's only the 8th time conditionals are listed on the index. Anyway.

Book I section 44.

 

τοιαῦτα δὲ καὶ οἱ Κορίνθιοι εἶπον. Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἀμφοτέρων, γενομένης καὶ δὶς ἐκκλησίας, τῇ μὲν προτέρᾳ οὐχ ἧσσον τῶν Κορινθίων ἀπεδέξαντο τοὺς λόγους, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ μετέγνωσαν Κερκυραίοις ξυμμαχίαν μὲν μὴ ποιήσασθαι ὥστε τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ φίλους νομίζειν (εἰ γὰρ ἐπὶ Κόρινθον ἐκέλευον σφίσιν οἱ Κερκυραῖοι ξυμπλεῖν, ἐλύοντ᾽ ἂν αὐτοῖς αἱ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους σπονδαί), ἐπιμαχίαν δ᾽ ἐποιήσαντο τῇ ἀλλήλων βοηθεῖν, ἐάν τις ἐπὶ Κέρκυραν ἴῃ ἢ Ἀθήνας ἢ τοὺς τούτων ξυμμάχους.

[2] ἐδόκει γὰρ ὁ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους πόλεμος καὶ ὣς ἔσεσθαι αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὴν Κέρκυραν ἐβούλοντο μὴ προέσθαι τοῖς Κορινθίοις ναυτικὸν ἔχουσαν τοσοῦτον, ξυγκρούειν δὲ ὅτι μάλιστα αὐτοὺς ἀλλήλοις, ἵνα ἀσθενεστέροις οὖσιν, ἤν τι δέῃ, Κορινθίοις τε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ναυτικὸν ἔχουσιν ἐς πόλεμον καθιστῶνται.

[3] ἅμα δὲ τῆς τε Ἰταλίας καὶ Σικελίας καλῶς ἐφαίνετο αὐτοῖς ἡ νῆσος ἐν παράπλῳ κεῖσθαι..

In subsection 1, notice how Thucydides hedges his statement: the first assembly of the Athinaians considered the Korinthian speech “no worse” than the Kerkyraean. Jowett misstates this.

The parenthetical expression is a full-up conditional. The protasis uses a conjugated indicative verb in executive voice but we have a problem. This protasis can only happen if there’s a full-up treaty. But Thucydides just said that’s not what the Athinaians agreed to. So this should be a supposition contrary to fact. Goodwin wants the protasis to use a past tense, for no reason that anybody can see. The verb we have is “imperfect”, which should mean something that has been interrupted, except that Goodwin explains that this past tense is being used for a present circumstance….

Now that we are aspectual, that explanation goes away. We are talking about a situation – the treaty – that didn’t exist. And as a situation, progressive is correct instead of imperfective.

When the grammars define a term and then have to undermine it with a lot of exceptions such as the “conditional contrary to fact” using past tense for something that didn’t happen, they are repeating centuries of tradition: “That’s the way it has always been taught” was fine in pre-Galileo times. This is the 21^st century.

Now. Goodwin tells you that the apodosis needs an, which we do have. But the an in this case is our change-of-focus: the Korinthians would have given the orders, but eluont’ is the Athinaians violating the treaty – that didn’t exist. So this is not an for something that happened – because the protasis didn’t happen. It couldn’t, since there was no treaty.

Notice that this is how you use the certainty indicative in a situation that definitely doesn’t exist.

Since accepting the orders of the Kerkyraeans would have been an open breach of the treaty, Athins concludes a defensive pact only. So the Korinthians didn’t get their way, but the Kerkyraeans didn’t get everything they wanted. They just got assurances if the Korinthians repeat their attack.

In subsection 2 Jowett negates the wrong thing. He essentially negates the progressive eventive eboulonto but Thucydides negates the impersonal gerundive proesthai; the Athinaians planned for Kerkyraea not to be conquered by the Korinthians. What they did plan (in Thucydides’ original parallelism) is to set the Korinthians against the others so as to weaken both prospective opponents as much as possible before the war broke out. Jowett hides this purpose by putting it at the end of the sentence, another example of a transposition that interferes with what Thucydides says.